Trust and supervisor organizational embodiment: A between‐ and within‐person investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How does trust in supervisors as organizational representatives vs. as independent persons, as captured by the interaction of cognition‐based trust in the supervisor and supervisor organizational embodiment (SOE), influence employees' responses to supervisors? We examine this question at the between‐ and within‐person levels. Using two‐wave data from 221 Chinese employees, Study 1 finds that, at the between‐person level, the relation between cognition‐based trust in the supervisor and affective commitment to the supervisor is stronger at lower levels of SOE (i.e., when supervisors are perceived as individual persons irrespective of their organizational role). Based on three‐wave longitudinal data from 212 North American and European employees, Study 2 finds that, at the within‐person level, the initial level of cognition‐based trust in the supervisor is related to a sharper decline in affective commitment to the supervisor and perceived leadership effectiveness over time when SOE is low. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it